RANBIR SINGH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

CWP/22397/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a challenge to the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 148 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, Ranbir Singh, contested the jurisdiction and procedural correctness of these notices and orders. The court referenced two precedent cases, Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, which had addressed similar issues. The court found that the procedural lapses in issuing the notices and conducting assessments were contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act, leading to confusion and potential hardship for the assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763807 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOOR; PRIDHI SANDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA; ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Circulars and Instructions; Faceless assessment; Financial Implications; Jurisdiction; Statutory provisions
• Section: 148; 119; 144B; 120

Judgement Text

"CWP-22397-2024 134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RANBIR SINGH INCOME TAX OFFICER AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr Mr. Rohit Kaura Mr. Ms. Pridhi for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor respondents/Revenue 3. Both the counsel are petition stands finally No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.07.2024, No.15745 of and others held as under: 2024 (O&M) Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RANBIR SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH **** Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel respondents/Revenue. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in No.15745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in held as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22397-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SANJAY VASHISTH , Advocate for the petitioner. Sr. Standing Counsel and Sr. Standing Counsel SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of that the issue involved in the present examined and concluded by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, and by the Coordinate Bench in CWP 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India , decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra) (O&M) .2024 Petitioner . . . . Respondents notice on behalf of that the issue involved in the present CWP , CWP 2024 titled as Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (supra) MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22397-2024 by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Se Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 “16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or ta suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside for want of jurisdiction. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in ctions 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the axpayers. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22397-2024 at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” 4. Keeping in view above, terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis Jurisdictional Assessing Officer well as the 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. September 05 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 19. The respondents-revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 20. All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.” Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 well as the consequential proceedings are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA , 2024 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. . All the writ petitions are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis Accordingly, notice issued by under Section 148 dated 23.03.2024 as are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No this Writ Petition in the aforesaid mutatis issued by as MOHIT GOYAL 2024.09.05 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "